AW: [governance] .xxx. igc and igf

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Ian Peter

If IGF and the CS component are to be useful we need to begin looking past existing structures and reacting to their every move and towards the creation of structures that fill both the gaps and the areas where ICANN cannot work effectively.

Wolfgang:
This is exactly my point. We have to invent something which is new, which goes beyond the "either intergovernmental organisation or private sector organisation". ICANN has made a step in the right direction by trying to be multistakeholder  (with all the the restrictions and deficiencies we have experienced since 1998). But ICANN, fortunately, has a limited mandate and gets problems if it enters fields where public policy or economics play a key role (the .xxx and .com/.net cases are good illustrations). To re-delegate such political/economic(cultural) issues to an intergovernmental body can not be the solution. So we need something in between. One source of inspiration (not a model) could be Milton Framework Convention (my ciritical point to the coinvention is that it uses a traditional legal instrument which can be sigend and ratified by governments only). We have to discuss where legitimacy for CS come from and how the power for agenda setting, policy development and decision making is re-arranged and re-distributed. 
 
Bertrand like me have always raise 2010 as the next checkpoint. JPA terminates 2009, ITU has its next PP in 2010. IGF mandate ends 2010. And some circles are planning something like a WSIS III (a ministerial ECOSOC meeting) in 2010. With other words, we have to start now to produce something which could be useful in three years from today. The four options from the WGIG report are not really a good start. They were not the result of a serious discussion. The compromise in the Chateau in July 2005 was: "If we can not agree on one model than please give the different model proposers a free hand to write down whatever they want". Linda produced her option, the EU another one. One came from Abdullah. Probably it ewas Avri who did No. 2. The result was this confusing proposal with four options whiach had been taken much too seriously by the public. Fortunately the negotiators in PrepCom3 ignored this and produced something which is really useful. Tunis is much more than IGF and enhanced cooperation. It is a framework of principles and the beginning of processes. In particular in the principles there is a lot of music. Certainly they are kopen for interpretation but the basic horzontal principle for all the other vertical principles is multistakeholderism, which is really much more than one could expect after the Geneva Decem,ber 2003 deadlock. 
 
BTW, there is not need to link 2010 to "enhanced cooperation". Enhanced cooperation is a buzzword for oversight over the root and DNS. This issue will remain on the agenda but will lose its political dynamite with anycastand more JPAs between ICANN and other governmentds (or a new MoU betwen ICANN and the GAC). Here we talk about a body which would go far beyond ICANNs limited mandate. Such a body will have to deal with issues which have both a technical and a politcal (economic) component and which are outside the mandate of ICANN but should not go directly under the sole decision making capacity of an existing (ore new established) intergovernmental organisation. 
 
Anyhow, lets move forward, using different channels, including IGF, GIGANET etc. I am planning to organise a small workshop in connection with the European Summer School on Internet Governance in Meissen/Germany (August 4, 2007). Input and ideas are welcome.
 
Wolfgang
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance